Arbitration Law Monthly

Section 12A of Singapore’s International Arbitration Act is drafted in all but identical terms to section 44 of the English Arbitration Act 1996. Both provisions authorise the court to grant interim relief preserving assets or evidence where the arbitrators themselves have not been appointed or are otherwise unable to act. Belinda Ang Saw Ean J in Five Ocean Corporation v Cingler Ship Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 311 has considered the operation of that provision where the relief sought is the sale of the assets that form the heart of the dispute between the parties.

The facts of Maass v Musion Events Ltd and Others [2015] EWHC 1346 (Comm) are somewhat curious. They involved an arbitrator who initially appeared to make an award on jurisdiction without having heard any argument, but having corrected his error then proceeded to do just that. The case involves useful analysis of the meaning of an award, the duty of an arbitrator not to proceed without a hearing and the test for substantial injustice where there has been procedural irregularity of this type.

The decision of Burton J in Egiazaryan and Another v OJSC OEK Finance [2015] EWHC 3532 (Comm) makes an important point on the question of determining whether a person is a party to an arbitration clause and can be joined to the arbitration. The court ruled that the issue is to be determined not by the law applicable to the arbitration clause but rather by the law of the domicile of the signatory of the arbitration clause.

In Emirates Trading Agency LLC v Sociedade de Fomento Industrial Private Ltd [2015] EWHC 1452 (Comm) the High Court has once again been required to consider the effects of a pre-requisite to arbitration whereby the parties are required to undertake “friendly discussion” in order to resolve their dispute. In the present case the validity or otherwise of the clause, and indeed whether it had been satisfied, ultimately did not need to be decided. The question became whether the failure of a party to appeal against a partial award holding that the clause did not bar arbitration barred an appeal against a later final award where the arbitrators refused to revisit their earlier view.